सुधीर चौधरी के खिलाफ ₹5 करोड़ की मानहानि का केस, दिल्ली HC ने जारी किया नोटिस; विजय शेरावत को ‘संसद तोड़ने’ वाले बयान से जोड़ने का क्या है पूरा मामला?

Activist and UPSC aspirant Vijay Sherawat has filed a ₹5-crore defamation suit against journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, Essprit Productions and Prasar Bharati over a DD News broadcast that allegedly misidentified him as the person who made remarks about destroying Parliament and turning India into a “Nepal-like” situation. The Delhi High Court issued notice on September 7. Independent fact-checks by The Quint and Alt News identified Sherawat and the man who made the controversial remarks as two different individuals. The matter will next be heard on September 22.

A controversy surrounding journalist Sudhir Chaudhary’s television programme has now reached the Delhi High Court, with activist and UPSC aspirant Vijay Sherawat filing a ₹5-crore defamation suit.

Sherawat has alleged that a July 27 episode of Chaudhary’s prime-time programme “Decode” on DD News wrongly identified him as the person who made controversial remarks during a Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest, including statements about “destroying Parliament” and turning India into a “Nepal-like” situation.

The Delhi High Court on September 7 issued notice to Chaudhary, his production company Essprit Productions and Prasar Bharati, which operates DD News. Justice Subramonium Prasad also sought a response to Sherawat’s request for interim relief seeking restraint on further publication and circulation of the disputed broadcast. The matter is listed for September 22.

### ***Where did the controversy begin?***

The controversy traces back to a protest associated with the CJP at Jantar Mantar. During the protest, a video circulated on social media showing a man making provocative remarks about Parliament and a “Nepal-like” situation in India.

Soon afterwards, photographs and videos of CJP-linked activists were circulated alongside the protest video. Some social media posts claimed that the man making the controversial remarks was the same person who appeared alongside CJP representatives.

Sherawat has denied this allegation. According to his petition, he never made the statements attributed to him and was wrongly identified during the television broadcast.

The dispute became particularly significant because the allegations were not limited to a political disagreement. Sherawat claims that the broadcast portrayed him as someone advocating the destruction of Parliament and violence, thereby damaging his reputation.

### ***What does the fact-checking show?***

Independent fact-checks have examined the identities of the two men.

***The Quint*** reported that the person seen with CJP spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka was Vijay Sherawat, while the person seen in the viral video making the controversial remarks was identified as Saurav Singh. The publication concluded that the two were different individuals.

***Doordarshi News*** also examined the visuals and reached the same conclusion. Its report identified the CJP-linked person as Vijay Sherawat and the man who made the controversial remarks as Saurav Singh. Sherawat had also posted a video denying that he was the person in the controversial clip and said that the remarks should be investigated and action taken against the person who made them.

This distinction is at the centre of Sherawat's legal case.

### ***Why did the matter become a defamation case?***

Sherawat's case is that the television broadcast attributed the controversial remarks to him even though he was not the person who made them.

He has therefore approached the Delhi High Court seeking ₹5 crore in damages and an injunction preventing the disputed broadcast from being further telecast, published, circulated or disseminated.

The case names Sudhir Chaudhary, Essprit Productions and Prasar Bharati/DD News as respondents.

The legal question is therefore not simply whether the controversial remarks were made at the protest. The key question is whether those remarks were wrongly attributed to Sherawat and whether such an attribution amounted to defamation.

### *Why is CJP supporting Sherawat?*

The issue has also become politically significant because Sherawat is associated with the Cockroach Janta Party.

CJP has supported Sherawat's position and described the alleged identification as irresponsible reporting. The party has said that wrongly portraying a person as anti-national or as someone advocating violence can have serious consequences, including risks to the person's safety.

At the same time, the court has not yet ruled that Sudhir Chaudhary or DD News committed defamation.

The Delhi High Court has only issued notice and sought responses from the respondents. The court will hear arguments on the interim relief on September 22.

### ***The bigger question about media and fact-checking***

The controversy has revived a larger debate over television journalism and fact-checking.

Calling someone anti-national, violent or supportive of attacks on Parliament is a serious allegation. If the identity of the person in the footage is wrong, the consequences can extend well beyond a television programme, particularly when the content is subsequently circulated across social media.

On the other hand, whether the broadcast was legally defamatory, whether there was negligence or intent, and what relief should be granted are matters that will ultimately be determined through the court proceedings.

For now, the strongest independently verified point is that fact-checks by The Quint and Alt News found **Vijay Sherawat and Saurav Singh to be two different individuals**.

The next significant hearing in the case is scheduled for **September 22**.